I have no doubt that if humanity wanted to, it could sequester all the carbon necessary to reverse climate change, and more. The question isn't really whether humanity is capable of doing it (we are), but rather whether we will do it.<p>In particular, for those who have the majority of "ability" to make change, would it be easier for them to take more and more clean resources in a zero-sum battle or have a short to medium term hit in allying themselves with the rest of the world to fix climate change in the long term?<p>If COVID has shown us anything, the answer to the last question is unequivocally no. COVID has been a very obvious salient problem and most nations failed the test. If we can't beat COVID, we will not beat climate change. No technology can change human nature.
There is a major part of this debate that keeps getting brushed under the carpet due to decades of fear-mongering. Nuclear energy.<p>It is a large scale solution that works today, not at some indeterminate point in the future. Yes there are problems, yes there are limitations, yes there are risks and yes it is expensive but many of these can be addressed by governments and through regulation.<p>A major part of reducing carbon emissions is to transition Asia and Africa away from coal and towards nuclear energy and not by the free market but by government supports. This can be supplemented by the plethora of technologies available today viz solar, wind, demand response etc.<p>What is of prime importance is that we limit carbon emissions today and keep doing so even as economies grow and energy consumption increases.
He and his team (mostly composed of scientists, not economists) provide very interesting insights on global warming/energy transition. Unlike others, they provide the big picture of the situation and are not trying to hide their sources.<p>I'm surprised to see one of his presentation on HN, where the opposite opinion reign I think. As an example, they are really "bearish" on the Green New Deal, as it will simply not be enough to address the challenge ahead of us.
Curious to see people' reaction.
Spoiler: No, but it can help.<p>I'm really tired of this technology vs. policy vs. behavior changes discussions. It's a false dichtomy. We'll need all of that.
I just finished reading the book released by Bill Gates titled "How to Avoid a Climate Disaster." In it, he described how tackling this problem will take an extremely difficult combination of technologic advancement, government policy, and market alignment. We need to do everything we can to be sure that choosing the green energy option isn't just the morally correct choice, but is also the rational choice for everyone to make.<p>I recommend the book BTW. Though it tries its best to be optimistic, I finished it thinking "well shit, I don't know if this is possible." He is right in saying that it won't be easy.
It has to. Every prescription I've read almost exclusively focuses on changing behavior. That means telling huge numbers of people - billions really - that their pursuit of wealth and convenience and modernization must be handicapped. In some cases, we're told there are too many people altogether.<p>That's a recipe for unrest and war on a global scale. A technological solution might avoid all that.
For anyone else utterly fascinated with the debates between technological development advocates and lifestyle alteration advocates in response to climate change, I absolutely cannot recommend The Wizard and the Prophet enough.<p>From the author of “1491” fame which is quite popular here on HN—it’s actually interesting I see that book on pre Colombian America recommended more often here on HN than the one on technology and climate change.<p><a href="https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/34959327-the-wizard-and-the-prophet" rel="nofollow">https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/34959327-the-wizard-and-...</a>
While it is important to be good stewards and not pollute etc, I don't think we are competent to solve climate issues as a whole, when we can't trust each other to keep our word (so much of the time), and especially when we have rejected the specific advice of the planet's Creator.<p>But things can be OK in the long run if we really try to learn what we should do, and do that. I would include praying, honesty, and kindness among those things. Really there is good reason for hope for the best; many of these things are expected.
A clean and sustainable source of energy exists in a form of controlled nuclear _fusion_. Unlike Nuclear _fission_ (current nuclear technology) fusion works with hydrogen (deuterium and tritium isotopes) and produces no lasting radioactivity or dangerous materials. The source material is just water. Commercial use is still a decade away [1]<p>[1] <a href="https://www.iter.org/" rel="nofollow">https://www.iter.org/</a>
No. People need to take a thermodynamics class. Unless you go nuclear, you're not moving away from fossil fuels anytime soon. Most all OECD nations have decided that nuclear "isn't worth the risk."<p>We're going to be burning coal for a long, long time.
Without 'thermo-industrial' development, a large percentage of 'us' wouldnt even exist. So while predicting the future of technology isnt possible, we do know that technology created us.
I think we're staring ourselves blind, straining to see any possible high-tech solution that will solve climate change neatly, easily and without any significant sacrifices.<p>The problem is not technological. It is political and societal, and those cannot be solved by technology.<p>At this point, even trying to mitigate the consequences of climate change will take large-scale mobilization, on a scale we have never seen before, much larger than the wartime mobilizations of WW2. Considering our current stumbling response to a global pandemic, with possible consequences much lesser than what climate change will bring, I'm sorry to say that the outlook is quite grim.<p>We have act as humanity collectively, not as individual bickering nations.
I'm still waiting on the crisis to materialize. Florida was suppose to be under water 10 years ago and 50 years ago we were suppose to be in a second Ice Age. Oh and the Ozone was suppose to be gone by now.
The better question is who can save us from ourselves?<p>As long as it seems preferrable to dream of some hypothetical set of technical solutions rather than mildly discomforting us by adjusting habits to be less wasteful, I see little hope for that endeavor.<p>With every day that passes without self-moderation the damage increases. Sorry flora and fauna, your world ends before consumerism does.